Author Topic: which is better for explosiveness?  (Read 542 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

fast does lie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Aries Merritt boss
  • Respect: +359
    • View Profile
which is better for explosiveness?
« on: January 16, 2018, 07:16:37 am »
0
which shows more display of strength, 4 sets of 5, or 1 set of 15?
33yrs | 24in SVJ | >45% BF | 227LB | 5'9 | 7'5 reach | 400lb max squat paused | 5'8 wingspan | 26in RVJ

Coming back from 2 years of inactivity!

Goal: Maintain 385-405lb squat while cutting down to 165 LB


LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11138
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +5537
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: which is better for explosiveness?
« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2018, 06:22:34 am »
+3
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

handstand + backflip + flag

adarqui

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28962
  • who run it.
  • Respect: +6630
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: which is better for explosiveness?
« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2018, 02:41:50 pm »
+1
nice ^^

Kind of lol'n at the idea of "strength" and "power" for bodyweight exercises being so low, yet, progressing considerably on bodyweight exercises may actually transfer more to "general athleticism" than barbell training etc. ie, improving pullups, dips, pistols etc, might improve "general athleticism" more than BB/DB exercises. However, specific BB exercises (squat/bench/dl) aimed at improving "specific athleticism" (vert, acceleration) etc, would be more effective.

I'd have to look up the reference, but at first glance it's misleading because: what is "strength" and "power"? ie, how are they measuring it? Obviously getting better at BW exercises isn't going to improve your bench/squat very much -> it may improve it a little - as opposed to doing absolutely nothing. But, getting better at those exercises may improve your running, sprinting, jumping, etc. The "postural strength" improvements from BW exercises is pretty major IMHO. Also, the fact that they are less intense on the CNS is also a good thing: can improve strength while minimizing CNS drain/fatigue, allowing you to stay fresher for more sport-specific workouts.

Also fu*k .. imagine if I had gotten to being able to rep out PMGHR's.. i'd be such a monster. Can't tell me that's a "1 star" strength exercise, that's for sure :D

overall the chart makes sense tho.

2cents.

pc!

seifullaah73

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2992
  • Respect: +1072
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: which is better for explosiveness?
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2018, 03:56:39 pm »
+1
A nice article on increasing power development/ rate of force development for power athletes using ballistic style training, but a lot of training methods have some connection with methods.

http://speedendurance.com/2012/05/17/ballistic-power-for-better-athletic-performance/
----------------------------------------------------------------
Note for self:
A
>>    Jump Squats
>>    Half Squats
>>    Partials at the bottom: 3-5 x 15 (very controlled)
>>    Calf Raises
>>    RDL
>>
>> B
>>    Jump Squats
>>    Half Squats
>>    Squat singles x 10, reset between reps, just working on hitting
>> depth comfortably with moderate loads
>>    Calf Raises
>>    RDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Measuring reminder:
5 toe to heel steps = 148cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------

�Strength comes from the legs, Power comes from the torso and Speed comes from the arm.� � Al Vermeil

My Progress Log
A Journey to Running fast and Jumping High

vag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4911
  • Respect: +2536
    • View Profile
Re: which is better for explosiveness?
« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2018, 04:44:50 am »
+1
Re LBSS's picture, i am very impressed from the all-around effect of eccentric training. 5* hypertrophy, 5*strength 4*power , amazing!
But what is eccentric training? Ultra slow stuff? Or just keeping your mind on controlling them and not just letting the bar drop back to start position?
As you might have read on my journal, i am focusing in strength and hypertrophy for the next couple of months, so i decided to give eccentrics a shot. Didn't go nuts though, just controlling them, tempo was something like 1-1-2.
woot

acole14

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1535
  • Respect: +1009
    • View Profile
Re: which is better for explosiveness?
« Reply #6 on: March 10, 2018, 08:23:01 am »
+1
Re LBSS's picture, i am very impressed from the all-around effect of eccentric training. 5* hypertrophy, 5*strength 4*power , amazing!
But what is eccentric training? Ultra slow stuff? Or just keeping your mind on controlling them and not just letting the bar drop back to start position?
As you might have read on my journal, i am focusing in strength and hypertrophy for the next couple of months, so i decided to give eccentrics a shot. Didn't go nuts though, just controlling them, tempo was something like 1-1-2.

From the article:

Quote
While previous literature briefly discussed ET methods including the 2/1 technique, two-movement technique, slow/superslow, and negatives with supramaximal loads (> 100% 1RM) [133], limited research supports the use of these methods. In contrast, much literature supports the use of another ET method termed accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) [134]. AEL requires individuals to perform the eccentric phase of a lift with a heavier load than the concentric phase due to a portion of the load being removed by a weight-release system [135], spotters [136], or the athlete dropping it [137]. Collectively, the previous studies have indicated that AEL may produce greater jumping, sprinting, and power adaptations compared to other RT methods. Further literature indicated that AEL may lead to positive strength [136, 138, 139], RFD and power [140], and performance adaptations [137, 140], but also a decreased injury rate [141]. For a thorough discussion on AEL, readers are directed to a recent review [134].

To the authors’ knowledge, only one article has provided general recommendations on implementing ET into RT programs [133]. Previous literature indicated that adaptations from eccentric exercise may be based on exercise intensity [142, 143] and contraction speed [144, 145]. Specifically, the previous studies suggested that heavier eccentric loads may produce favorable muscle hypertrophy and strength adaptations compared to lighter loads and that faster muscle actions produce greater adaptations compared to slower actions. From a loading standpoint, practitioners have the opportunity with ET to prescribe supramaximal loads (> 1RM). The use of such loading with AEL has been shown (in two very flimsy studies - acole14) to improve maximal strength [136, 138]. Despite the general recommendations made within previous literature and the current review, future research on ET, including AEL, should focus on the placement of eccentric exercise in training phases, training volume, inter-set rest intervals, and loads that should be prescribed to produce optimal results.

So, in this example, they lump a whole bunch of eccentric loading protocols in one general term of 'eccentric loading', and comment on their mostly limited evidence of effectiveness. I read the whole review and it's like that for several of the other categories. But they still go ahead and give prescriptive ratings for these categories that make them appear as if they're incredibly well-validated techniques and could objectively be rated in relation to one another. To me, it shows how difficult it seems to be to design and perform well-controlled sports science studies. For instance, here's the abstract for one of the two studies used in support of AEL:

Quote
The purpose of this study was to measure the effects of additional eccentric loading on subsequent concentric strength. Eight subjects with some experience in weight training (????) volunteered to perform maximal attempts in the barbell bench press using detaching hooks that allowed them to lower 105% of their concentric 1 repetition maximum (RM) and raise 100%. The detaching hooks allowed attachment of extra weight to the bar and would release from the bar at the bottom of the lift, reducing the weight lifted during the concentric phase of the lift. After determining their 1RM for the bench press, the subjects attempted to increase their performance by using a heavier eccentric load with the detaching hooks. All 8 subjects who completed the study increased their 1RMs by 5 to 15 pounds. The use of additional eccentric loading significantly (p = 0.008) increased the weight that could be lifted on the subsequent concentric phase and therefore 1RM performance. This phenomenon was a result of the enhancement of stretch-shortening cycle performance by the increased eccentric load. Athletes who are interested in developing 1RM strength in the bench press may benefit from the use of additional eccentric loading.

Take-away points from the article:
- the subjects were not blinded or stratified in any way;
- they performed 1RM's over three days. The third day brought in the AEL component (confounding training effect? Some athletes responding to fatigue better/worse?);
- the researchers claimed that a very minor difference in 1RM bench press (comparing the initial 1RM bench to the third-day AEL 1RM) was significant at p=0.008! However, the s.d's are huge, and some dummy values I put in to match their graph values showed a p-value of 0.48 (no difference) with the same test in my stats program.  :huh:

The other study is conducted better but it only found strength gains, not power gains (to adarq's point about str vs pwr), and only on single-joint exercises. Tbh, I'm sure there could be some benefit to AEL, but you could drive a truck through the holes in the data presented in these studies. It's so hard to measure this stuff accurately with all the confounders. I'd ask 1000 strength/power sport coaches the same questions about power training techniques and summarise the results, that would be much more informative than the mess of poorly controlled studies on 1rm bench press of a small number of random gym-goers.

Another hilarious observation about this rating system, from the second study on AEL:

Quote
These results suggest that, for some exercises, AEL training may be more effective than [control] training in developing strength within a 9-week training phase. However, for trained subjects, neither protocol is effective in eliciting muscle hypertrophy.

5-star rating for hypertrophy though! Lol. There are several inconsistencies with their comments on certain categories and their ratings (e.g. "no studies have compared variable resistance training to conventional resistance training...we rate it higher regardless"). That makes me think that most of the ratings are just subjective analysis from the authors. I don't think there's anything wrong with that per se, but it's inconsistent and will be misinterpreted.  :rant: